Novice Question About Nikon/Sigma Lenses
Oct 31, 2018 11:09:45 #
Tommy 86
Loc: East TN
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It came with Nikkor DX VR AF-S 18-55 mm 1:3.5-5.6 and 55-200 mm 1:4-5.6 kit lenses (I hope I have identified them properly). I was happy with the lenses but on a trip to the national parks in Utah, I got pretty tired of switching lenses all the time, always fearing I would drop one while switching. I consulted with a local camera shop and they recommended a Sigma DC 18-250 mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro HSM lens. It's been okay but I wasn't thrilled with it, particularly the vignetting on wide-angle shots. I just compared near-identical shots from each of the lenses and was stunned at how much sharper the shots with the Nikon lenses were, and at how washed-out the shots using the Sigma were. Is this typical? Did I make a lousy choice with the Sigma? I'm about to take a trip to Italy and it doesn't look like the Sigma is going to be making the trip with me.
Oct 31, 2018 11:16:17 #
Tommy 86 wrote:
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It ca... (show quote)
That Sigma, along with a few other lenses, are pretty mediocre. Your Nikkor lenses are actually quite good optically, but they are not built to last. Getting a second body is what I would do, but I don't mind carrying a little extra gear - and is good backup in the event the camera dies. What I actually did a year ago was to purchase a Sony RX10-M4, which has surprisingly good image quality, and a zoom that has an angle of view equivalent to a 24-600mm lens. Generally speaking I am not a fan of wide angle to telephoto zooms - they really don't do many things well. But the Zeiss lens in the Sony, and the Nikkor 18-200 VR II are quite decent.
Oct 31, 2018 11:28:33 #
I’ve always read that you should go with the brand of lenses that matches your camera. I have only one “off” brand, and that’s the Tokina 100mm macro. It’s an excellent lens, and I couldn’t be happier. Otherwise, all my lenses are Nikon.
Oct 31, 2018 11:29:51 #
Sigma makes some excellent lenses. Like all others, it depends on what you buy as to whether or not they will be sharp. Research, before you invest, would be my advice.
Oct 31, 2018 11:37:53 #
Personally, I really do like the Sigma ART, as well as Sport, series of lenses. I own a 50/1/4, 135/1.8 and 24-105/4 ART lens and find them to be a bit heavy yet wonderful lenses. I am not a big fan of Sigma's older series of lenses, nor their contemporary series. IMHO. Best of luck.
Oct 31, 2018 11:39:42 #
Tommy 86 wrote:
Did I make a lousy choice with the Sigma? I'm about to take a trip to Italy and it doesn't look like the Sigma is going to be making the trip with me.
That's what eBay is for. Clean it, photograph it, and sell it. Then you'll have some money to put toward a Nikon lens. Below are some recent sales on eBay.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_nkw=sigma%2018-250mm%20nikon&rt=nc&LH_Auction=1&_trksid=p2045573.m1684
Nikon 18-200mm recent sales -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=sigma+18-250mm+nikon&LH_Auction=1&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR10.TRC1.A0.H0.Xnikon+18-200mm.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+18-200mm&_sacat=0
Comparisons -
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=sigma+18-250mm+nikon&LH_Auction=1&LH_Complete=1&LH_Sold=1&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR10.TRC1.A0.H0.Xnikon+18-200mm.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+18-200mm&_sacat=0
https://www.flickr.com/groups/588943@N25/discuss/72157621818604024/
https://www.thephotoforum.com/threads/battle-of-the-superzooms-a-single-vacation-lens-sigma-18-250-vs-nikon-18-200.349016/
http://cameradecision.com/lenses/compare/Sigma-18-250mm-F3.5-6.3-DC-Macro-OS-HSM-Nikon-F-DX-vs-Nikon-AF-S-DX-Nikkor-18-200mm-f3.5-5.6G-ED-VR-II
Lens comparison sites -
http://lensvslens.com/
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/lenses
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx
http://www.diyphotography.net/this-website-helps-you-choose-your-next-lens-based-on-the-photos-you-like/
https://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM
http://lenshero.com/lens-comparison
http://www.lenstip.com/lenses.html
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare
http://www.lenscore.org/
Take your time and do the research. It's free!
Oct 31, 2018 15:21:30 #
An important, and often overlooked, aspect of modern lens performance is how well the image stabilization works. Since most people shoot handheld, good optical stabilization on cameras with no in body stabilization is extremely important to get good results. Whilst many Sigma lenses rate well for image quality in tests, these tests are usually conducted in lab conditions on tripods and do not evaluate the IS quality. I have heard that Sigma lenses suffer from below average IS when compared to Nikon, Canon and Tamron, possibly the reason for your lack of sharpness. Vignetting is pretty common with superzooms and easily corrected in post processing, but an unsharp image has no cure! You might be better served by the Nikon 18-300 VRII, it's decent optically and has excellent IS. I have extensive experience with it's cousin, the Nikon 28-300mm lens on full frame bodies, and, whilst not the absolute sharpest optically, has great IS and is a very versatile travel lens. I've made 24 x 36" prints from images made with that lens and they look stunning!
Oct 31, 2018 15:57:56 #
Most super zoom lenses are notoriously softer at longer focal ranges.
There are exceptions but there is a usually a compromise in quality vs shorter focal range zoom lenses.
Note the range of Nikon's "Trinity" of zoom lenses :14-24, 24-70, 70-200 are all 3x or less.
From what I've been told, Nikon's 18-300 & 18-200 does a bit better than the Sigma 18-250.
This segment from an Imaging Resource review on the lens:
" The 18-250mm OS performs well with respect to light falloff. In fact the only point where corner shading is much of a factor is with the lens set to 18mm and using the ƒ/3.5 or ƒ/4 aperture settings.
On the telephoto end, the lens shows its shortcomings. Wide open, it does a little better than previous Sigma 18-200mm offerings, but even by 80mm - just a third of the way through its entire focal range - it's showing significant corner softness wide open. Results at 120mm and 250mm are similar, with particularly soft corners at 120mm (9 blur units in the corners!). There also isn't much of a central area of sharpness to speak of; there's a bit at 80mm and 120mm, but by 250mm everything is slightly soft. Stopping down to a smaller aperture does help amend this softness, especially at 80mm; at ƒ/8, it becomes respectably sharp, at just under 2 blur units across the frame. Not so much for 120mm and 250mm. At these focal lengths you'll need to stop down to at least ƒ/11 to achieve optimal sharpness (2-3 blur units across the frame). Diffraction limiting sets in at ƒ/16 so stopping down further only makes this less sharp."
There are exceptions but there is a usually a compromise in quality vs shorter focal range zoom lenses.
Note the range of Nikon's "Trinity" of zoom lenses :14-24, 24-70, 70-200 are all 3x or less.
From what I've been told, Nikon's 18-300 & 18-200 does a bit better than the Sigma 18-250.
This segment from an Imaging Resource review on the lens:
" The 18-250mm OS performs well with respect to light falloff. In fact the only point where corner shading is much of a factor is with the lens set to 18mm and using the ƒ/3.5 or ƒ/4 aperture settings.
On the telephoto end, the lens shows its shortcomings. Wide open, it does a little better than previous Sigma 18-200mm offerings, but even by 80mm - just a third of the way through its entire focal range - it's showing significant corner softness wide open. Results at 120mm and 250mm are similar, with particularly soft corners at 120mm (9 blur units in the corners!). There also isn't much of a central area of sharpness to speak of; there's a bit at 80mm and 120mm, but by 250mm everything is slightly soft. Stopping down to a smaller aperture does help amend this softness, especially at 80mm; at ƒ/8, it becomes respectably sharp, at just under 2 blur units across the frame. Not so much for 120mm and 250mm. At these focal lengths you'll need to stop down to at least ƒ/11 to achieve optimal sharpness (2-3 blur units across the frame). Diffraction limiting sets in at ƒ/16 so stopping down further only makes this less sharp."
Oct 31, 2018 16:38:11 #
LensTip.com does extensive lens testing. The Sigma 18-250mm has actually very good resolution in the lens center but very poor at the edges at longer focal lengths. You would want to keep the aperture around f/5.6 to f/8 for the best resolution.
Lens center, Sigma 18-250 f/3.5-6.3
Lens edge, poor resolution in the 120mm to 250mm range
Nov 1, 2018 05:38:55 #
Tommy 86 wrote:
Bought a Nikon D3300 a couple of years ago. It ca... (show quote)
Consider the Nikon 18-140 mm lens, and awesome, affordable lens, for around $200.00 at Roberts Camera.
Nov 1, 2018 06:01:59 #
mcmama wrote:
I’ve always read that you should go with the brand of lenses that matches your camera. I have only one “off” brand, and that’s the Tokina 100mm macro. It’s an excellent lens, and I couldn’t be happier. Otherwise, all my lenses are Nikon.
A friend of mine has the Tokina 100mm and I tried it out on my D750. It is indeed an excellent lens. I am surprised at how inexpensive it is.
Nov 1, 2018 06:48:58 #
Gene51 wrote:
That Sigma, along with a few other lenses, are pre... (show quote)
Or get the Nikon 18-200 VR
Nov 1, 2018 07:00:22 #
Tommy 86
Loc: East TN
Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your help and insights.
Nov 1, 2018 07:38:27 #
Tommy 86 wrote:
Thank you all for taking the time to reply. I appreciate your help and insights.
Yes, to sum up the other posters. You did get a bad lens. Sigma makes some of the sharpest lenses out there in their Art series of lenses. But the others are not good. Generally, most wide-angle to telephoto lenses are not good all-around lenses. I bought a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD to take on a trip and I was impressed with the sharpness of this lens because I was not expecting this. I am a Nikon shooter and my other 8 lenses are Nikon, but I wanted a light weight walk-around lens and this Tamron was perfect. It does not vignette in the wide angle setting. However, the 28mm setting may not be wide angle enough for your DX camera. In this case, I might consider the 10-24mm or the 16-85mm DX lens that Nikon makes. I carried the 10-24mm with me to Disney because I knew that pix of the grandkids' enjoyment was more important than landscapes. So for your consideration, I might try the 16-85mm.
Nov 1, 2018 07:43:53 #
Tommy 86
Loc: East TN
Thanks! Disappointing to have been steered to that lens by someone I trusted and from whom I took camera classes at the camera store.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.